About the Authors
24 National Science Teachers Association
Chapter
Developing a Research- Based Rationale
D In this chapter we off er you the guidance of a number of teachers to
eveloping a research-based rationale requires formulating
a way of thinking about teaching. Rather than a casual, weekend eff ort, the creation of a complete rationale is a long-term enterprise that may last for years and may never
be fi nished (and probably should not be).
help as you select and refi ne goals, identify roles for students and teachers, describe your desired classroom environment, select content to be taught, and formulate assessment models for your teaching practices and student learning. Finally, we suggest how to develop a base of research fi ndings that support your rationale.
My own research-based framework is based on my student goals that, in turn, are consistent with current learning theories and eff ective teaching strategies as indicated by research. Important components in my classroom, such as student actions, teaching behaviors and strategies, classroom climate, content, and assessment, which are crucial in achieving these goals, interact as a supporting framework in leading toward such goals.
—Aidin Amirshokoohi, High School Science Teacher, Illinois, 2003
Teaching With Purpose Teaching With Purpose
Identifying Goals for Students Th e initial process of developing a rationale is not complicated, but it is thought provoking and time intensive. Once developed, however, updating and maintaining a rationale become almost routine.
You can develop a research-based rationale alone or in a group (such as a school department or a professional education class or one made up of interested colleagues). In any of these situations, having a guide or colleagues who work together will enhance building a rationale, as you have much to discuss, consider, and decide. An experienced guide makes the process fl ow, and discussions with colleagues open up avenues of creativity and inspiration you will appreciate. Rationale development in preservice teacher education courses has been shown to work well, in part because of the multiple opportunities for interaction, others seeking the same ends, and the thoughtful eff orts of a skilled instructor. But if you are working alone, don’t despair—we’ve given guidance to teachers in your situation many times before. Read these chapters, think about how this applies to you, and write your ideas down. In the end, you will have a rationale to be proud of.
We agree with experienced teachers and teacher educators who fi nd it best to start by selecting broad goals for students—goals that focus on a broad spectrum of student learning. If you already have a set of goals, revisit them while reading this section, looking at them closely in ways you may not have considered. We’ll begin with the three basic steps in the process of setting goals for students:
• Brainstorming • Refi ning the goals • Developing support for the goals
Brainstorming Goals are our starting point. Until we articulate specifi c goals for students and commit to them, we can’t really design our instructional plan or our curriculum. In our science methods courses, we always begin with an activity to identify these goals. We call this goal generation, and we use brainstorming as the central process.
26 National Science Teachers Association
Goal Generation If you’re going to generate ideas, you need an initial starting or focal point.
One might begin with Penick and Bonnstetter’s (1993) question, “After 13 years of formal schooling in science, what goals would you like your students to achieve?” or “After completing your science program what do you want your students to be like, to be able to do, and to know?” Th ese questions get at the attitudes, dispositions, products, and content knowledge that you think should be part of a purposeful science program.
Brainstorming is a good way to get started. It is a powerful group activity, where one idea leads to another. (For a twist on traditional brainstorming, see sidebar on p. 44, “Negative Brainstorming: A Technique for Finding the Positive.”) In this process, we try to let our minds wander, making free associations between thoughts, with little concern for directed thinking. Th e process, while perhaps more powerful and quicker in a group, can easily
be adapted for an individual working alone. Alone, you can write your ideas as a list or an outline, draw pictures, or do whatever else keeps the process moving. Th is is not a time to refl ect, question, modify, or even elaborate on your initial ideas. Th at will come later (Harris-Freedman 1999).
Two rules keep the brainstorming process strong. First, remember that all ideas are valid and must be added to your list. Write them all down, just as you heard them in the group or thought of them on your own. Second, don’t evaluate at this time. Just write down ideas as they come to mind. If someone disagrees with an idea, write down both points of view. Evaluation of ideas limits free association, an essential component of creativity.
The Facilitator’s Role When brainstorming occurs in a group, the facilitator must wait patiently
and quietly after the initial focus question. Typically, participants are slow to begin to off er ideas, but as they see their ideas written down without evaluation, the pace will increase (this holds true even when you are brainstorming by yourself ). All suggestions should be listed one after the other for everyone to see. A group of preservice teachers typically can generate 30 or so goals in about 20 minutes. Th ere is usually duplication, ambiguity, and overlap. At this point, don’t worry about it. We will deal with that in the next phase on page 29. Even if the pace of ideas slows, don’t give up. Th inking creatively takes time and eff ort, and ideas don’t come
Teaching With Purpose Teaching With Purpose
Part of your strategy as a facilitator is to be prepared and anticipate what might occur. We routinely fi nd that groups that are generating goals initially leave out not only creativity (which we think is the essence of science), but other concepts like independent thinking (necessary for continued learning and advancement), and, surprisingly, science content itself. If science content is not listed after about 15 items are named as potential goals, ask, “What about science?” Th is usually quiets the room, as participants scan the list, looking for the science. Th ey often come back with statements like, “Science is in the problem identifi cation and solving,” or “Science is in ‘Students will apply their knowledge.’”
With this lack of specifi c content in their specifi ed goals, we like to tease participants a bit by asking, “What about ‘Know the periodic table’?” or ‘Newton’s third law’?” Th ey always tell us these aren’t real goals; these are just short-term objectives and not the lasting knowledge or characteristics they want citizens to possess. At this point, some are already questioning what they have traditionally taught or what they plan to teach, as well as how. Th ese questions prompt the group to look at their list one more time, seeking to eliminate trivial goals and to make all listed goals clear and worthy of inclusion.
An individual who is brainstorming alone can follow the same rules as for groups, but extend the writing time, possibly over several days. Whether in a group or alone, you can let your writing sit for an hour or a day or two, then revisit it and add more. Like good soup, sometimes it is better the next day, as it ages and, perhaps, new ingredients are added. Let the
28 National Science Teachers Association
fi rst ideas you write down lead you to other ideas. If you do better making
a concept map rather than a list, put your thoughts down that way. Or you might turn to your methods text or the national standards documents for inspiration.
Refi ning the Goals After all the brainstorming, you probably have a list of disorganized and possibly even contradictory goal statements. Now, it’s time to refi ne each goal. While there are a number of ways to do this, we suggest two mechanisms. One of us (John) likes to follow basic goal generation by breaking the larger group into small groups and providing this challenge:
Reduce this list on the board down to a maximum of 15 goals you will take as your own. You may rewrite, clarify, combine, or add to the list.
About 30 or 45 minutes later, after vigorous debate, each group has its list. Th is activity allows all to talk in the safety of small groups, propose and defend ideas, and take leadership roles. Many who don’t speak out in large groups can be quite vocal in a small group.
Once the small groups each have a list of 15 goals, the instructor brings them back together as a whole and then says,
Now, as a whole group, reduce the list still further to no more than 10 goals. You have 15 minutes.
With that, John leaves the room, forcing leadership to arise within the class. As individuals have been debating in small groups, they have arguments ready for the large group. Usually there is enough similarity in the group ideas that only four or fi ve of the goals provoke most of the debate.
When the students fi nish, they announce with obvious satisfaction that they have their 10 goals. By this time, they are usually committed to these goals, as they have been debating and defending them for almost an hour. Th ey have faith in these goals and they have talked about them enough to understand what is meant by each. Th ey do not let go of these goals easily and they usually want to describe and explain them to others. Th is is as planned.
Teaching With Purpose
Robin likes to follow the brainstorming by breaking the large group into small groups and saying,
Take a look at the list of ideas and begin to sort them into groups by writing each idea on a “stickie” or card for sorting. Remember that ideas may fi t into more than one group.
Th e use of white boards or butcher paper with markers is a quick way to make the sorting visible for all. Each group then shares its sorting and titles with the large group. Th ey present an oral version of how they picked the groups and titles they used in their sorting. Students reveal their prior knowledge, misconceptions, and diff erences in understandings. Most importantly, all get to express their ideas, disagreements, and suggestions in a safe environment.
If you are by yourself, you can write each idea on a card or stickie and spread them out on a table where you can see them all. Th ink or talk aloud about how each of the ideas might relate to one another. If you made a concept map to begin with, revisit the connections. Start to move the goals into several groups, maybe four or fi ve, and then give each group of goals
a general title. Th is title should identify the common characteristics of the goals you placed here. Sometimes a brainstormed goal becomes the title for
a group. Remember that if a goal fi ts in more that one group, just make an extra stickie or card and place it in another group.
Developing Support for Goals Once goals have been established, a thorough and persuasive rationale includes a justifi cation of each goal. Th is justifi cation typically demonstrates the value of this goal for the individual and society, sometimes through logic, philosophy, or belief and sometimes from research. For instance, “Students will exhibit creativity” might be justifi ed philosophically by noting that variety and aesthetics are pleasing, part of every culture, and viewed by most as desirable. From a research perspective, creativity might be defended by noting that creative people have been shown to be more observant and more dependable, to have better health, and to learn and retain more information (Barron 1963). From a purely logical point of view, we might justify creativity as necessary for continual progress and improvement of products,
30 National Science Teachers Association 30 National Science Teachers Association
Finally, many will justify a particular goal by looking to the discipline itself. For instance, in teaching science, all the standards-related documents (such as the National Science Education Standards [NRC 1996]) seek for our students to understand the nature and history as well as the concepts of science. For creativity, we might appeal to statements from scientists and philosophers such as, “Creativity is the essence of science,” or “Innovation and discovery are two sides of the same coin,” or even “Science is going beyond the information given.”
Obviously, the goal that can be justifi ed though all of these avenues— such as “Students will exhibit creativity”—is among the easiest to defend and support and probably is open to multiple mechanisms for incorporating into the daily curriculum. Yet, being easy to justify does not mean it automatically will be easy to apply in the classroom, to develop in students, or to assess. And just because it is hard to implement is no reason to discard it as a goal. In many ways it’s a lot easier to be a teacher without purpose, although not very eff ective, effi cient, or satisfying to teacher or students.
Developing a Research Base With details of pertinent aspects of the goal, we now move to the literature of research related to the goal. But before you dive into the educational research databases, you might organize the essential elements of each goal by writing a paragraph or two about each, derived from your personal experience and knowledge (Rutherford and Ahlgren 1990; Weld 2004). Remember, though, some of your personal thoughts might include misconceptions about what is good teaching. While developing a research base to support each goal, you may have to let go of some of your prior ideas about eff ective teaching.
Begin your search for evidence with the ideas you have identifi ed logically as potentially viable and valuable. We suggest starting with the resources included in this book or a database such as ERIC ( http://www.eric.ed.gov/). In the process, you are going to move from just being able to say, “Th is is how I teach” to being a purposeful teacher who says, “and this is why, and what I expect to happen.” As you fi nd credible sources and read them, they
Teaching With Purpose Teaching With Purpose
Research journals such as the Review of Educational Research often have concise review articles that summarize a wide selection of prior research publications and are rich in information. Th ese always include numerous references to other articles you might fi nd useful. Some of your goals may even be represented by a complete journal, such as the Journal of Creative Behavior. In addition, recent books, such as Classroom Instruction Th at Works: Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement (Marzano, Pickering, and Pollack 2001), off er research-based strategies on topics such as cooperative learning and generating and testing hypotheses. Two other sources of research-based information for educators are Tips for the Science Teacher: Research-Based Strategies to Help Students Learn (Hartman and Glasgow 2002) and Educating Teachers of Science, Mathematics, and Technology (NRC 2001). Spend regular time in the library adding to your knowledge and understanding of the education research and you will be well rewarded.
Research about education provides power and enthusiasm for teaching, as these teachers make clear:
My passion for teaching stems from the research I have had the opportunity to grapple with. I have found that the more secure my teaching philosophy is, the more accurate my intellectual autonomy is to judge the research. Asking questions of the research you read leads to yet another source of research.
—Brandon Schauth, Second-GradeTeacher, Iowa, 2003
For the past 17 years, I have indexed the journals I receive (through
32 National Science Teachers Association 32 National Science Teachers Association
I regularly search the database and read or fi le the articles and “how to” ideas in my course guide books as references and activities. I think
a teacher could teach an entire high school course out of the wealth of information published in journals over the years. —Paul Tweed, High School Biology Teacher, Wisconsin, 2003
Identifying Desired Roles for Student and Teacher Now that you have goals that are well described, carefully considered, and justifi ed by research, you are ready for the next step: determining the necessary roles of students and teacher to achieve them. Identifying roles is the part of rationale development where you translate what research says into purposeful practices. You will now answer questions such as, “What will my classroom look like and be like?” “What are my expectations for my students?” and “What will I be doing when I teach?”
We now turn our focus to how to structure our teaching, curriculum, and classroom climate to achieve our goals. Th ere are multiple ways to approach this task. And, as Figure 1 (p. 12) indicates, our student goals provide a path and connections between student and teacher roles. Connecting all the paths shows clearly the relationship of goals and roles.
Although there are many ways to isolate and describe the student and teacher roles that will most likely lead to the desired goals, we suggest that with each goal you write out the key concepts and your personal understanding of the goal. For example, pick your fi rst goal—“Students will use scientifi c methods of inquiry”—and write out what you know are the essential elements of inquiry. Using the National Science Education Standards (NRC 1996), for example, you see that inquiry has fundamental understandings, abilities, and processes. From other literature, such as Reif, Harwood, and Phillipson (2002), Robinson (2004), and Harwood (2004), you will fi nd that questions are a key component of inquiry. From your intuition and logical understanding of appropriate roles, continue on to seek research support for each goal.
We fi nd that a graphic organizer, such as the Role Identifi cation Matrix (Table 1), which was developed by Robin’s class, can be useful in arranging and coordinating your ideas related to goals and roles. Th e focus questions
Teaching With Purpose Teaching With Purpose
a particular goal, how students will learn, how you will teach, what the classroom climate will be like, and how you will know you are successful. As an example, the matrix in Table 1 identifi es the goal “Students will be creative” (Marks-Tarlow 1996; von Oech 1998) and shows how one group elaborated on this particular goal.
Role of the Student Begin by writing in the fi rst column of the matrix what you would expect to see students doing if they were being creative. With the creativity goal in mind, our fi rst thought might be that diff erent students are doing diff erent things. Th ere would be unusual activity, things that you as teacher might not have predicted. Students should be expressing their creativity, perhaps talking with each other or by producing a creative product. Rather than just following teacher directions, some students will be making their own decisions, structuring their own activity, lesson, or learning.
Even if they are all doing the same experiment or activity, some will approach it one way and others in a diff erent fashion. Students’ comments will vary. Some students will be thinking as you do and others will not. Th ere will be much speculation about classroom events.
As you work with your goals, you will gradually expand on them, eventually developing a catalog of descriptions detailing your actions and those of your students. Second-grade teacher Craig Leager expanded the student roles column for his written rationale (Figure 2). Th is list, slightly condensed from his original, provides an idea of how much detail you can create just by thinking about goals and roles.
Role of the Teacher Now, with the student column fi lled in, return to the teacher column of Table 1. With each envisioned role of the student, there should be a corresponding role for the teacher. Sometimes you will think of something you do and sometimes something you should avoid doing. But you must consider carefully how you will go about teaching to obtain the desired student outcomes you listed in the fi rst column (Yager 1991; Shapiro 1994; Rakow 1996/2000; Texley and Wild 1996/2004; Lowery, Texley, and Wild 2000; Haley-Oliphant 1994; Trowbridge, Bybee, and Powell 2004).
34 National Science Teachers Association
Table 1. Role Identifi cation Matrix Goal: Students will be creative.
Assessment Focus question: What Focus question:
Role of the Students Role of the Teacher
Classroom Environment
Focus questions: will my students do
Focus questions: How
How will I know I and be like?
What will I do and
will I create the class
am successful? behaviors and
be like? List specifi c environment? What
What will actions.
will I do to develop the
affective environment?
students’ products be?
Will not all be doing Am creative in my
Not all products the same thing.
Display creative student
are identical. having a number of
lesson design by
work, encourage and
celebrate student
different activities
differences.
available. Will have
Students begin opportunities to
Stay current
Display pictures, posters
to bring in structure class
by reading and
in the classroom,
researching changing with new events relevant and events and make
interesting decisions.
about creativity.
and issues. Make it look
Incorporate new
materials and ideas into classroom
like a science room.
ideas. instruction.
Discussions are ideas. Not all
Will express unusual Am accepting
Create a safe work
varied, lively, and students will have
of unusual and
space, intellectually and
unexpected, with the same ideas.
different ideas from
physically.
students. unusual points of view.
Students fi nd experiments,
Will approach Use creative ways
Provide a wide variety of
more, possibly activities, and
to resolve real
resources to encourage
better, solutions, ideas from different
situations, showing
student use of variety of
as well as new directions.
examples and
information.
posing problems. problems.
Will answer Ask open-ended
Students are frequently with
Offer more independent
learning through depth and variety.
questions and use
investigation; all
appropriate wait-
inquiry, not just time.
investigations are
conducive to inquiry.
about inquiry.
Will be open in Do not evaluate
Students their answers, offer
Make the overall climate
student responses. intellectually comfortable, disagree with speculation, and try
Limit evaluation in safe, and nonthreatening. me and others, new things.
general and teach have their own students to self-
opinions and evaluate.
support them.
Teaching With Purpose
Figure 2. Craig Leager’s Student Goals and Actions
Goal: Students are critical thinkers. Student Actions:
Articulate and attempt multiple solution paths Ask and answer questions Refl ect and evaluate their thinking processes Make connections across tasks Debate and challenge ideas Assess the credibility of sources Relate their own personal experiences to learning situations Solve problems
Goal: Students have a “voice” in their learning environment. Student Actions:
Verbalize their opinions, questions, and concerns Assist in the development of classroom rules Aid in issue resolutions with peers/groups Suggest topics of interest for study Share personal experiences
Goal: Students take intellectual risks. Student Actions:
Question concepts and content Seek alternatives to given approaches Communicate suggestions (verbally, in writing) Debate and challenge ideas
Goal: Students are resourceful learners. Student Actions:
Ask questions of teachers and peers about concepts and content Use print and technological resources to answer questions Search for information using resources beyond those at home or school Use information from personal experiences to make connections Investigate suggestions made by others
Goal: Students use problem-solving skills. Student Actions:
Attempt problems using various approaches Seek advice and guidance from others to solve problems Test and modify ideas Look for relationships between ideas and topics
36 National Science Teachers Association
Figure 2. (continued) Complete activities and tasks
Goal: Students make cross-curricular connections. Student Actions:
Draw on personal experience for information Use resource materials from one subject area in another Communicate similarities and differences of concepts and content between
different subject areas Ask questions about relationships among subject areas
Goal: Students demonstrate cooperative behaviors and exhibit social competence.
Student Actions: Offer assistance to peers/others Mediate resolutions with peers/others Maintain a clean and orderly work area Listen to one another’s suggestions, comments, and questions Offer and accept constructive criticism
Goal: Students are self-motivated learners. Student Actions:
Communicate opinions and concerns Attempt problems without directly being instructed Use problem-solving techniques Set personal goals related to one’s own education
Goal: Students communicate their own ideas effectively. Student Actions:
Participate in class Make eye contact during conversation Work cooperatively Share personal thoughts related to topics of discussion Ask questions
Goal: Students are creative. Student Actions:
Hold many ideas at once Have and share original ideas Listen to and analyze new views Attempt multiple solution paths Be independent in one’s thinking Take risks
Teaching With Purpose
For instance, if you want students each to do something diff erent, you might command, “Everyone must do something diff erent!” Unfortunately, creativity does not occur on demand. And a command from the teacher is in many ways the antithesis of what one expects in an open and creative environment. So, in this case we might write in the teacher role column, “Avoid unnecessary directions,” as directions can be quite constraining. But, of course, we must eventually fi gure out what we will do. In this case, rather than “Avoid unnecessary directions,” we might phrase it as, “Keep directions as minimal as possible,” or “Structure directions so that students must make many decisions as they complete the assignment.”
So, what are the actions of a teacher in a creative classroom? Some research has found that modeling creative behavior is an asset in teaching others. “Model creative behavior” is still rather vague, however. But if we think about what would we be doing if we were modeling creative behavior, we can come up with more specifi c actions, such as
• Using multiple ways of expressing ideas or solving problems. • Accepting and valuing diversity of thought and action. • Continuing to learn, becoming able to respond to student ideas more
easily and with yet more ideas. • Asking more open-ended questions as opposed to those that require a simple or memorized response. • Asking questions to gain new information rather than to test student knowledge or skills.
Th e list could (and should) go on. Do this with each of your student goals, and soon you will have a set of specifi c behaviors and roles that make up the heart of your teaching rationale.
38 National Science Teachers Association
The Classroom Environment If you can picture something in your mind, understand it, and refi ne and revisit the picture often, you can begin to make it real. In the case of your science classroom, “making it real” means creating an environment in which the students respond to your role as you envisioned it in the second column of Table 1. For the third column, think about the classroom setting where you and your students spend the day. Imagine this setting with no monetary, resource, or space barriers. Th ink of what you would like it to look like physically. Now, bring the teacher and students into the picture, pick a content topic and imagine the live action in your classroom. What physical characteristics of your room would help you achieve those goals you have established? How are materials arranged and accessed? What stimulating items are present? How are students and teacher positioned in the room? (Motz, West, and Biehle 1999).
In addition to physical aspects, your room has an emotional climate. You create that climate through your behaviors and role. You can easily imagine your role if you wished to scare all your students, to make them feel incapable of learning, unworthy of respect, or even bored. Just as your role and the role you allow and expect for students can lead to these negative feelings if you create a negative climate, so can your role lead to a positive environment (Darling 1993; Garcia 1998; Harris 2004). When they were preservice teachers, all of the teachers whose comments appear in this book wrote imaginary scenarios that described their ideal classroom environments and the actions of the students and the teacher that would create those environments. Th ese scenarios, while imaginary, were fi rmly rooted in careful planning, research, and analysis. Moving from the imaginary to the real requires no more than thoughtful and skillful implementation in your classroom.
Furthermore, you create more of the intellectual climate of the classroom through implementation of your role than with the physical materials and resources in the room. What you expect from students, the freedoms you allow, how you respond to students, and your overall demeanor often are far more infl uential than the mere objects in the room. You have a lot of power and it can be used to further your goals or to inhibit them.
Teaching With Purpose
Assessment Th e fourth column of the Role Identifi cation Matrix is “assessment” (Table 1). Asking certain focus questions—for example, “How will I know I am successful?” and “What should my students be doing or learning as a result of my actions?”—will help you identify the specifi c types of assessment you can use to evaluate you and your students’ actions (Doran et al. 2002; Darling-Hammond 1993).
While assessment is the last column and usually the last activity of a teaching unit, it must be considered prior to and during instruction, not just after. Assessment informs you, guiding your teaching while alerting you to both successes and problems. Assessments must be developed as you develop curriculum and must be a key feature of your research- based rationale. In a well-designed rationale, the goals, the roles, and the assessment are all consistent and compatible. If you don’t plan for this, you might easily have assessments that counter your prior activities or even your goals. End your teaching with assessment, but don’t leave it for last.
Assessment of Students Assessments are used to classify students, but they must go beyond this single use to include formative assessments that guide instruction (Atkin and Coff ey 2003). If we truly intend to reach and teach all students, we must know how close we are coming, which goals are showing progress, and where we as teachers have failed or lack knowledge. Without such feedback, we are left to random decision making or we may be ignoring aspects of education with which we feel uncomfortable.
Self-Assessment by Teachers In addition to assessment of students, teachers with purpose use their rationales to look inward, routinely asking themselves questions such as
• How do my classroom practices align with my rationale? • What components of my rationale are not being addressed in my
practice? When and how is this occurring? What can I do to change this?
• How do the science learning opportunities in the classroom match
my rationale?
40 National Science Teachers Association
• In the context of my rationale, what appears to work and what does not appear to work? What needs to be revised and how would
I do it? • What new understandings have evolved from my teaching
experiences? • What revisions are needed for my rationale and why? • What do I need to learn?
Once you have described your role, how could you not consider how your actual role matches your desired role? Perhaps the most valuable aspect of your rationale is a clear image of what you want to be doing as you teach so you can compare this image to your actual teaching performance assessment.
I constantly refl ect on my position in the class. Were higher-order questions used appropriately? Were questions phrased so as to maximize student synthesis of knowledge? Did my questions elicit student conceptions of what was being taught? Th is is a constant battle, and seems, at times, daunting. Over time, refl ection on my questioning techniques served to improve my perception of what students were learning, as well as my use and phrasing of higher-order questions.
—Brian Fortney, High School Science Teacher, Wisconsin, 2003 Many teachers videotape themselves in the classroom and then use some
system of objective analysis for coding and assessing their behaviors and roles. Evaluation comes into play when you compare the observed (the assessment) with the expected performance and ask basic questions such as, “How are these diff erent?’’ “How important are the deviations and how do I explain them?’’ “How must I change to obtain the performance I desire?’’
Airasian and Gullickson (1997) provide eight reasons why self-evaluation is an important process for teachers. Th ey note that self-evaluation
• Is a professional trait and responsibility. • Focuses professional development and improvement on the classroom
or school level where teachers have their greatest expertise and eff ect. • Recognizes that organizational change is usually the result of
individuals changing themselves and their personal practices, not
Teaching With Purpose Teaching With Purpose
practices. • Builds awareness of the strengths and weaknesses of personal
practice; it grows from the immediacy and complexity of the classroom, as do teachers’ motives and incentives.
• Encourages ongoing teacher development and discourages unchanging classroom beliefs, routine, and methods.
• Improves teacher morale and motivation. • Encourages collegial interactions and discussions about teaching.
Obviously, all professionals self-evaluate and teachers should be no diff erent. If you must rely on others for your professional evaluation, you are forever dependent on their points of view and you must wait to make changes until the external evaluator is present. Imagine driving your car and having to wait for a backseat driver to tell you when to slow down or to turn. A truly professional teacher makes expert observations, assessments, evaluations, and decisions based on a solidly grounded rationale for teaching. Table 2 is an example of a refl ection matrix for asking questions in the classroom.
Bringing It All Together Now comes the fun part, as you implement your well-developed research- based rationale for teaching. Chapter 4 guides you in implementing and developing your own skills while off ering still more suggestions for developing, understanding, and using your rationale.
Purposeful teachers’ evidence and insights come from regular and systematic study of themselves and their classrooms, making them action researchers in settings where instructional problem solving takes on new meaning. Research involves asking questions, seeing problems and opportunities, trying new ideas, and experimenting with new ways of teaching and structuring the classroom. Th ese teachers use their personal rationales as frameworks not only to teach, but to study what is working or not working as desired.
42 National Science Teachers Association
Table 2. Refl ection Matrix on the Use of Questioning Evidence From My
Research-Based Classroom Practice Refl ective/Evaluative What Action Do I Statement From
That Supports This Comments About My Plan to Refi ne My Rationale
Practice? Student learning and Students seem to
Statement
Classroom Practice
I plan to continue performance is better match my behavior.
The focus on the
what I am doing, when I ask good
kinds of questions
that I ask has helped since I am a work- questions—that is,
in-progress in this questions that are
Students with
me in several ways.
questions show more area, but I have consistent with my
begun to internalize desired goals.
curiosity and interest
I have been able to
in the lessons.
ask questions that
this process.
have led to a higher
Interested students
I plan to continue stay on task better.
quality of classroom
discussion.
to have students involved in this
process. As questions prior to
I have prepared
Students have
students move teaching lessons.
become more
comfortable with
through the year
responding and are
and become familiar
with levels of varying cognitive
I ask questions of
more engaged in
questions, I could demand.
what we are doing. I
have been surprised
have them write
by how deeply some
questions requiring
more cognitive myself teaching and
I have videotaped
of my students can
demands. used a checklist to evaluate my question
think.
I also plan to use a asking.
Students appear
to provide better
closure assessment
responses on test
in which students
I practice wait-time.
questions that call
write down three
for synthesis of
things they learned,
two questions monitor my question-
I ask students to
information.
they still have, asking and to provide
and one thing they feedback.
understood for the fi rst time. I’ll see how this goes and make modifi cations as needed.
Source: Designed by Sandra Enger, Teacher Educator, Alabama, 2003
Teaching With Purpose
As a teacher/scholar, I am revisiting the research and adding/deleting parts of my rationale. My plans should grow with me, right? I always want to learn new things—I buy books, read articles, and talk to other teachers. As a teacher/researcher, I want to fi nd out how I can be better. I also want to know what is that something that makes one teacher able to reach students, another one fail. Is it just having written a rationale, or is it internalizing it and implementing it that makes the diff erence?
—Deanna Rizzo, High School Chemistry Teacher, New York, 2003
Negative Brainstorming:
A Technique for Finding the Positive
As a high school senior, I took a mandatory class called “Communism Versus Democracy.” While much of the course focused on events of the fi rst half of the 20th century, there was also a decided fl avor of indoctrination. Many students felt this and reacted negatively, even though we all much preferred what we knew of democracy to our visions of communism.
One day our teacher was focusing on the evils of war. For the fi rst time I recall in that class, he had us do a brainstorming activity. Actually, it was one of the few times we had done an activity. As such, it was a welcome change of pace. Th e teacher proceeded to the board and asked us to list the positive and negative aspects of war. At fi rst it went slowly and then, for some reason, the pace picked up. We began to have fun, much to the teacher’s chagrin, as we found more and more positive reasons for war. Soon our list looked like this:
ASPECTS OF WAR
Positive
Negative
We get more land
Th ey lose land
Employment increases
People die
Men look sexy in uniforms
It costs a lot of money
New technology is developed
People are mad at each other
Th
e men left at home have more dates We get to use our army Our army gets real experience War makes other issues seem less urgent War leads to great songs and movies War makes heroes We get to demonstrate bravery
44 National Science Teachers Association
Of course, our teacher did not like or want this list; he wanted one with a lot of negative aspects and few positive ones. We were not very obliging. Years later, I was teaching an inservice class on developing creativity. I had asked the group of teachers to brainstorm all the ways they could think of to enhance creativity. I waited and wrote and waited still more. Yet the list was painfully short. Th en, in a moment of inspiration, I recalled my high school class and said, “OK. What if you wanted to kill all vestiges of creativity? What would you do in your classroom?” With that, the teachers seemingly rubbed their hands with glee and generated a long list ranging from “lecture all the time” to “you will be evaluated positively only if your solution looks like mine” to “punish all who are diff erent.” We quickly had a respectably long list. Th en I said, “If this is what you would do to discourage creativity, what would you do to encourage it?” Without hesitation and almost in unison, the class said, “Do just the opposite!”
With that, I discovered the power of what I call negative brainstorming, a technique I have used often. It seems people sometimes fi nd it easier (or more fun perhaps) to think of the negative consequences prior to the positive.
—John Penick, Teacher Educator, North Carolina, 2005
References Airasian, P. W., and A. R. Gullickson. 1997. Teacher self-evaluation tool kit. Th ousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin. Atkin, J. M., and J. E. Coff ey. 2003. Everyday assessment in the science classroom. Arlington,
VA: NSTA Press. Barron, F. 1963. Th e need for order and disorder as motives in creative activity. In Science
creativity: Its recognition and development, eds. C.W. Taylor and F. Barron. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Darling, C. 1993. A new attitude: Teachers confront biases in sex equity training. Vocational Education Journal 68 (3): 18–21.
Darling-Hammond, L. 1993. Setting standards for students: Th e case for authentic assessment. NASSP Bulletin 77(556): 18–26.
Doran, R., F. Chan, P. Tamir, and C. Lenhardt. 2002. Science educator’s guide to laboratory assessment. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
Garcia, R. L. 1998. Teaching for diversity. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Getzels, J. W., and P. W. Jackson. 1963. Creativity and intlligence. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Teaching With Purpose
Haley-Oliphant, A. E., ed. 1994 . Exploring the place of exemplary science teaching. Washington,
DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Harris, R. L. 2004. Developing student centered classrooms. In Th e game of science education,
ed. J. Weld. Boston: Pearson. Harris-Freedman, R. L. 1999. Science and writing connections. White Plains, NY: Dale Seymour. Hartman, H. J., and N. A. Glasgow. 2002. Tips for the science teacher: Research-based strategies
to help students learn. Th ousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Harwood, W. 2004. An activity model for scientifi c inquiry. Th e Science Teacher 71(1): 44–46. Lowery, L., J. Texley, and A. Wild. 2000. NSTA pathways to the science standards: Elementary
edition. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association. Marks-Tarlow, T. 1996. Creativity inside out: Learning through multiple intelligences. Menlo
Park, CA: Addison-Wesley. Marzano, R. J., D. J. Pickering, and J. E. Pollack. 2001. Classroom instruction that works:
Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Motz, L., S. West, and J. Biehle. 1999. Science facilities by design: Learning and teaching in science. Th e Science Teacher 66(6): 28–32.
National Research Council (NRC). 1996. National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (NRC). 2001. Educating teachers of science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Penick, J. E., and R. J. Bonnstetter. 1993. Classroom climate and instruction: New goals demand new approaches. Journal of Science Education and Technology 2: 389–395.
Rakow, S. J., ed. 1996/2000. NSTA pathways to the science standards: Middle school edition. 2nd ed. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
Reiff , R., W. S. Harwood, and T. Phillipson. 2002. Scientists’ conceptions of scientifi c inquiry: Voices from the front. Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans.
Robinson, W. R. 2004. Th e inquiry wheel: An alternative to the scientifi c method. Journal of Chemical Education 81(6): 791–792.
Rutherford, F. J., and A. Ahlgren. 1990. Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
Shapiro, B. 1994. What children bring to light: A constructivist perspective on children’s learning in science. New York: Teachers College Press.
Texley, J., and A. Wild, eds. 1996/2004. NSTA pathways to the science standards: High school edition. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
Trowbridge, L., R. Bybee, and J. Powell. 2004. Teaching secondary school science: Strategies for
developing scientifi c literacy: Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. von Oech, R. 1998.
A whack on the side of the head. New York: Warner Books.
Weld, J., ed. 2004. Th e game of science education. Boston: Pearson. Yager, R. E. 1991. Th e constructivist learning model: Toward real reform in science
education. Th e Science Teacher 58(6): 52–57.
46 National Science Teachers Association
Appendix: “Rating Credibility of Research Sources” How do you determine the credibility of your sources? In Robin’s graduate seminar, students developed a rubric to check the credibility of sources. Table
A.1 defi nes the four criteria they used to determine credibility: Refl ects and Supports My Topic, Internal Credibility, Data Support Claims, and Web Credibility. As students read research papers, they looked in diff erent sections for internal credibility. For instance, in the Background section they looked at what claims were being made. In the Methods section, they looked at the description of the sample population and how it was chosen. Th ey also looked at what and how data were collected and the limits of each study.
Next they looked for reliability and validity information. In the Results sections of articles, they looked at levels of statistical signifi cance and whether the data made educational sense. Finally, in the Discussion section they looked to see if the inferences made were connected to the claims and were reasonable given the sample population, the data collected, and the statistics used for analysis. In using this scoring guide, students in this research course were able to sort their references into useable categories. Publications that scored high they used for major supporting ideas. Th ose that scored lower, if used, were in a minor supporting role.
Writing justifi cations becomes easier when you have gathered several papers that support your ideas about a goal. For each goal, bring together your original writings, including written statements about the key ideas of each goal. Provide support by linking each key idea to evidence found in the research. Have courage about dropping misconceptions or unsupported ideas you may have about what is good teaching. Now you should be letting research, not just intuition or even experience, guide your thinking. Th is is the essence of a research-based teaching rationale. Teachers with purpose are those who can and do support their ideas with research.
Teaching With Purpose
Table A.1. Credibility Scoring Guide
Criteria for
Credibility Level
Determining
Low Credibility
High
1 2 3 4 Refl ects and
Mentioned. Not related. Supports My
In the title and
In sections.
throughout the
Topic
article.
Peer reviewed. Cites Journal or No evidence Credibility
Internal
Written by
established
established experts. organization presented.
expert in the
has a positive
fi eld. Rigorous
reputation in
the fi eld. Data Support Statistically
data analysis.
Mismatch No claims Claims
Methods, what
signifi cant
kind of data are
between or no data.
results.
collected, reliability
claims and
Generalizations
and validity
data.
to other
information.
populations adequate and explained.
Web
Associated Found in/on Credibility
Online peer-
Reputable sponsor.
reviewed journal
References national with college or Amazon.
or publication.
organizations such
university. com,
as ACS, AAPT, NSTA,
local
NARST, ASTE, AERA,
newspaper,
NAGT, NABT, NESTA a .
internet, or web.
a American Chemical Society, American Association of Physics Teachers, National Science Teachers Association, National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Association for Science Teacher
Education, American Educational Research Association, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, National Association of Biology Teachers, National Earth Science Teachers Association.
Source: Modifi ed from matrix developed by graduate students at Buffalo State College, spring 2003.
48 National Science Teachers Association
Chapter
Implementing Your Rationale and Becoming a Mentor
I Th is chapter describes how you can implement and make these changes
n this chapter, we discuss how you can implement your rationale in your classroom and use it to become a mentor to others. As you develop and implement a research-based rationale for teaching, you will fi nd yourself changing. You will teach and communicate with others more eff ectively and achieve better results in the classroom.
systematically and inspire others to do likewise. Implementing Your Rationale
We focus here on four core aspects: design, implementation, assessment, and evaluation.
Science Program Design In designing a science program to implement your rationale in the classroom, you must consider national standards, district and state frameworks and requirements, standards for best practices and assessment, and the resources available. In addition, each individual must look at her or his own skills, as well as the skills of her or his students. Once again, teachers must consider how they will help each and every student to advance to all the stated goals. Such determination entails examining student backgrounds and characteristics as well as understanding all the variables, including the availability of time and resources (Rakow 1996/2000; Texley and Wild 1996/2004; Lowery, Texley, and Wild 2000; Garcia 1998; Hart 1983).
Teaching With Purpose
When you incorporate these components into a well-developed rationale, you have a guide for planning the best possible science program. While achieving all of your goals is the ultimate aim of teaching, any given lesson will generally stress just a few goals. But the individual goals provide convenient scaff olding for curriculum and student development since individual goals can be examined and thought of separately. Th us, we design our plan—our rationale—one goal at a time. With each goal, we can determine the role of the students and the teacher, what materials we will need, and what content to emphasize.
After the second week of his third year of teaching, a seventh-grade teacher put it this way:
First I thought about trying to tackle one of those goals. I thought that maybe taking all at once might have been a bit much for me. So I started off looking at one goal, “Students will use and be comfortable with technology,” because that was something being pushed at the time, and I said, “Th is is a great place for me to start.” I began incorporating a lot of technology, not only for me but for my students—getting them involved in more online resources using technology as a tool rather than as a crutch, as it is for a lot of people. And I use it myself as a way to take notes and have students take notes. I use it for kids as a learning experience where they can transmit other information. How do I know it works? Well, looking at what I’ve done, probably the best way I know it works is to see the students actively engaged in what they’re doing and enjoying it.
—Ken Tangelder, Life Science Teacher, New York, 2003 With the goals, research, and strategies from your rationale, you can
look at each aspect of your classroom—such as texts, materials, instruction, environment—and make informed decisions. For instance, selection of a textbook can be based on an evaluation of how it relates to your goals and desired student activities rather than assuming that the latest text is better than what you have.
Your rationale guides design of instruction as you again consider what you would like to see students doing as they learn. Visualizing your students succeeding in the classroom can be a critical part of achieving that success. How can you best develop that vision? In Chapter 3 we introduced a Role
50 National Science Teachers Association
Identifi cation Matrix (p. 35). Creation of your own matrix is an essential part of your design planning; without a matrix it will be diffi cult for you to
be truly purposeful or systematic in your approach. Your analysis of your completed matrix provides you yet more opportunities for thinking about and understanding your vision of teaching and learning.
Using your rationale and completed matrix, you can screen and review topics or activities, asking, “How will this particular topic or activity allow my students to work toward the maximal number of my goals?” or “How is this consistent with my goals and strategies?” or “How might this impede our progress?” You have made a plan and now you work the plan.
Program Implementation Implementation of the research-based rationale takes time, refl ection, skill, practice, and revision. Rather than living with anxiety, a purposeful teacher approaches a classroom with confi dence, knowing her or his thinking is grounded in research and reality and will lead to success for all.
My students are made fully aware of the goals that I have created for them, as well as the actions that should accompany each goal. I believe that this empowers students and gives them reason to strive for success. Parents have shared their pleasure with me in relation to having specifi c goals and actions that reach beyond a mandated curriculum and speak to the humanity of each student’s personal experiences.
—Craig Leager, Second-Grade Teacher, Iowa, 2003 And when things don’t work out as expected, the teacher-with-rationale
looks inward, examining why. Rather than discard the goal (or blame the students) this purposeful teacher returns to her roots, her carefully planned rationale. She might say, “If the goals are right and the research is right, then it can be done.”
Glenda Carter returned to teach middle school after a number of years as a teacher educator at North Carolina State University. In the sidebar “A Teacher Educator’s View From the Classroom Window” (p. 55), she describes how her rationale kept her going, even when problems arose.
Teaching With Purpose
Program Assessment Just like the feedback you collect from students, data on your teaching can
be gathered over several iterations of the curriculum. When you have three or more opportunities to teach the same material each day, your observations of yourself and your students (especially when you compare them to your desired images) easily guide adjustments that maximize your educational impact. No longer random or unsystematic, this type of refl ection and revision ensures a positive classroom evolution.
Coaches operate in much the same way as they watch videos and analyze the game, noting where improvements can be made (Weld 2004). So it is in the assessment and evaluation of a program plan. Your rationale, in conjunction with informal and formal student assessments and teacher refl ections, must guide changes in your program. Once you have taken action in the design, implementation, and assessment of your teaching program, you will fi nd yourself changing for the better.
Each week compare where you are with where you want to be. You are on the threshold of becoming a purposeful teacher when, rather than reacting to what happens in your room, you consider, refl ect, and make modifi cations that keep the class moving, in unison, toward the goals you have set.
One way of checking to see if you are moving in a positive direction toward your goals is to analyze your teaching through peer review or videotape analysis.
I regularly take advantage of video recordings of my teaching to observe the classroom environment and qualitatively and quantitatively analyze student involvement, interactions, and learning as well as my verbal and nonverbal behaviors and strategies.
—Aidin Amirshokoohi, High School Science Teacher, Illinois, 2003
I make a point to watch other teachers teach. I systematically study the behaviors of the teachers and students. I gather answers to my questions about teaching and learning.
—Jennifer Rose, Middle School Science Teacher, Minnesota, 2003
52 National Science Teachers Association
Evaluation While assessment is no more than a measure, evaluation places a value judgment as to the worth or value of that particular measure. Teachers with purpose continuously assess, and then evaluate, usually by comparing actual measures to those desired (Airasian 1994). A research-based rationale provides a mechanism for objectively and systematically evaluating instruction, student learning, the curriculum and classroom climate, and even your rationale.
As a classroom teacher I use active research as a way of refi ning my own teaching. Simple yet eff ective tools such as pre- and posttests and surveys work very well in developing a feedback system for the eff ectiveness of a class or program. For many years I have used these techniques not only for content-oriented information, but for attitudes toward science and the environment, measures of creativity and the ability to connect and apply science knowledge and methods to out-of-class situations, and student problem-solving abilities.
—Paul Tweed, High School Biology Teacher, Wisconsin, 2003 Becoming a Collaborator and Mentor
Once you have an image of who you are as a purposeful teacher and have
a rationale to guide your practices, you can begin to share your ideas and thinking with others. More so than teachers without a rationale, almost all teachers with rationales say that they are comfortable when asked to demonstrate or justify their teaching practices. In fact, many look forward to evaluation visits from school administrators or to showing their skills by presenting at professional meetings, teaching demonstrations, and workshops.
I invite administrators and peers into my classroom so that I can gain their insight and perspective. I make it a habit to invite my principal to visit during those most productive days. I am not afraid to keep my classroom doors open. Teachers need to be able to share their practices with others.
—Jennifer Rose, Middle School Science Teacher, Minnesota, 2003
Teaching With Purpose
Eff ective communication requires at least two people; to be eff ective, each party must use and understand the same language. A research-based rationale facilitates accurate communication by providing a common tongue—that is, common ideas and language that focus on research and observable events in the classroom. As teacher educators, we feel strongly that a teacher is not fully expert unless he or she is able to describe and explain his or her rationale to other teachers.
I noticed that most people (including administrators) don’t seem to be able to articulate what an eff ective science classroom looks like. I use my understanding of research to explain myself to anyone who might question what I am doing. What’s right for science classrooms according to evidence from research may not always be what is familiar to most people. In fact, most parents and administrators seem completely unaware of what constitutes eff ective science teaching. When I discuss what I’m doing as a teacher and explain the reasoning behind it with the parents of my students, it gives them confi dence that their child is in good hands.
—Jenni Geib, High School Physical Science Teacher, Missouri, 2003 Not surprisingly, professional teachers with rationales, expertise, and
high levels of comfort in explaining their roles and research are often found to be collaborative and to be mentors of others. Th ey can describe and explain—making their visions, actions, and skills clearly understandable to others. Th ey are teacher educators as well as teachers.
As a mentor, I try to befriend those who are newer than me or just seem to be struggling. I don’t know if it’s the rationale, the process we went through when developing it, or both that pushes me to share what
I know/learned with others. I always ask myself, Does this person have a rationale? Has he or she ever thought about writing out a formal plan for teaching? Th is is something I encourage someone to do.
—Deanna Rizzo, High School Chemistry Teacher, New York, 2003 An eff ective and professional teacher has strong visions and missions related
to classrooms and teaching. Such visionary teachers become leaders, viewing themselves diff erently because of their knowledge of what good teaching is
54 National Science Teachers Association 54 National Science Teachers Association
Preservice teachers at the local university always ask me, What are the most important things in science teaching? I tell them to get connected to the science teaching community at the state and national level, read journals, and use the ideas that fi t your situation. Have a well-thought- out rationale for what you do as a teacher. Collect all the resources you can that help you understand your area and eff ective teaching strategies. Be fl exible and take risks to improve the opportunities for your students.
Always stand up for your program, promote student work, write articles, invite the media in, get students involved in the community, beg, borrow, and write grants to get equipment so you have the best science lab in your area. Show students you are interested in your fi eld, that you are interested in them as students and as members of your community. Be curious; never stop learning. Use your own ignorance as a tool to show students that learning never stops. And most of all, have a sense of humor and enjoy what you are doing.
—Paul Tweed, High School Biology Teacher, Wisconsin, 2003
A Teacher Educator’s View From the Classroom Window
Like many of my science education colleagues, I had several years of precollege teaching experience, albeit almost 20 years ago. Although I knew the research literature and was cognitively convinced of the effi cacy of research, I wanted to apply some of the strategies in context and for an extended period of time. So, in the spring of 1998 I accepted an interim position at a middle school where student teachers were often placed. I taught full-time from March 9 to the last day of school, June 5, providing me an 11-week experience as a full-time teacher.
I had four heterogeneous classes of sixth-grade general science and two periods of electives—animal science and remedial reading. I decided to
Teaching With Purpose Teaching With Purpose
I was familiar with most commonly cited barriers for not using these constructivist based strategies, I thought I would explore constraints of time and the science curriculum, classroom management, established culture of the science classroom, and personal identity issues.
Initially, I thought that time barriers and covering the content would not be an issue. Philosophically, I wholeheartedly subscribed to the “less is more” emphasis of the National Science Education Standards. I felt no personal or professional pressure to fi nish the text or defi ned curriculum and was skeptical of the commonly off ered platitude that all the content had to be covered because the students would need the information for the next year. However, by April, I was questioning instructional decisions that lengthened the instructional process. By the end of the year I even questioned that trade-off of breadth for depth. My journal entries reveal much of my thinking at the time.
April 14
I am having the greatest diffi culty deciding how much freedom to give students to make mistakes. It’s quite a dilemma for me to make an instantaneous decision on whether or not I am going to allow students to go down a pathway that will not get them where I would like them to go. Th is is much more demanding and I am confl icted much more often than I ever was when teaching traditionally. I am tempted almost every day just to give them the answer. It is a constant struggle to stay in this process. And I am only struggling with myself.
Struggling with the confl icts between my research-based rationale and my eff orts at implementation was exhausting.
56 National Science Teachers Association
May 6 I am really tired. I persist in this very draining approach only because I am fi rmly convinced that its best practice as defi ned by research. I can’t imagine how I would persist if I hadn’t engaged in studies that gave me the opportunity to look at teaching in depth. A research paper can never capture all the complexities of the reality and richness of the teaching and learning endeavor. Understanding the complexity is probably what motivates me to continue tweaking, to align the theory and practice.
I had freedom to do what I wanted and I didn’t have to worry about evaluators coming in or about getting tenure or being rehired. I didn’t have to worry about the other teachers in the department. Although I had anticipated that parents and students would not provide constraints to teaching science constructively, what I hadn’t anticipated was why. I quickly realized after attending the fi rst few parent-teacher team conferences that
I was unlikely to face any constraints or complaints because science and social studies were not tested. Even with my own view, I kept seeing this experience through the eyes of the new teaching graduates who may enter
a teaching position in the middle of the year.
March 11 Th e science storeroom is a dump for mostly outdated and broken
equipment. And only the science department chair is permitted to have a key to the storeroom…. I thought it “amusing” that the science department head walked into my room after school today and pointed out that I had two microscopes and two balances on my back table that were not supposed to be there. First she asked where they came from and after I told her that they had been there when I arrived, she said, “Th ey belong in the storage room.”
I gained a lot of new respect for what my preservice students face when they try to implement research-based teaching strategies.
Teaching With Purpose
April 20 Today I went against what I know is best practice and what my own
research has indicated. I actually put three low-level students together to work on the lab. Even as I was doing it I was arguing with myself, “No. Wait. Figure this out.” Th e other part of me said, “I can’t, I have to do this now, I will think about this later.” I am bothered by what I feel is defaulting to what is easier for me.
And it didn’t happen just once.
April 23 OK, I have done it again. I pulled Benny totally away from the group
and I am making him work alone. Of course I am giving Benny points for completing his work. Th is is not what I wanted to do. How can I go against my own research fi ndings? I know that research always has to be reworked in context. But I am frustrated because I don’t consider this to be an unusual context. If I were less experienced though, I might feel that it was just another case of theory and practice just not meshing. I don’t really feel that way.
After the fi rst rush of excitement at having worked through multiple roadblocks, a set of fears, which appear in retrospect to be very rational, assailed me . Suppose I fall fl at on my face. Suppose I can’t do what
I sometimes so blithely advocate? If I were to fail at this task, what would I do for a living? I was not surprised that the results of implementing some of the recommendations did not go as smoothly or as well as I would have liked. However, I managed to persist in the implementation even in the face of failure. As I refl ected on my own willingness to do this, I came to realize that this persistence arose as a direct result of my knowledge of the research literature and my fi rmly entrenched belief that research informs best practice. I knew the research was sound and educationally it made sense. Somehow, I just was not able to put in into practice yet. My rationale, so carefully developed over a number of years, provided me a faith to carry on, to fi nd a way to make it work.
58 National Science Teachers Association
Th is trust in educational research makes me markedly diff erent from many preservice and inservice teachers. Not only do they usually lack necessary skills, they may give up on implementing innovative research-based strategies because of distrust in educational research itself. My own trust in the process was a direct result of my experiences as an educational researcher.
I came to the realization that literal interpretations of research literature may usurp teachers of professional judgment. I speculated that the gap is really one of understanding how the fi ndings of research should
be used. Th at is, using research fi ndings within the context of a particular class means the ideas are manipulated and rotated until a fi t with the particular class is possible. Th is requires considerable skill (and probably experience).
As I recognized that I was in a daily confl ict with myself over recommended practice and implementation of that practice, it became apparent to me that I now perceived a phantom gap between theory or research and practice. I realized that part of this gap is a product of producing teachers who are not researchers. Without the research portion of my own understanding, the outcome of my experience would have been much diff erent. I also realized that students need to be engaged in recognizing research fi ndings as guidelines and need practice in framing these guidelines within a classroom setting; part of the profession of teaching is the daily resolution of the confl icts between perceived theory and practice. Learning to teach means, among other things, learning to apply your own knowledge as you resolve the issues that arise routinely. Having a research base for your own understanding is a necessary part of this knowledge.
—Glenda Carter, Teacher Educator, North Carolina, 2003
References Airasian, P. 1994. Classroom assessment. New York: McGraw-Hill. Garcia, R. L. 1998. Teaching for diversity. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational
Foundation. Hart, L. A. 1983. Human brain and human learning. Oak Creek, AZ: Books for Educators. Lowery, L., J. Texley, and A. Wild. 2000. NSTA pathways to the science standards: Elementary
edition. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
Teaching With Purpose
Rakow, S. J., ed. 1996/2000. NSTA pathways to the science standards: Middle school edition. 2nd ed. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
Texley, J., and A. Wild, eds. 1996/2004. NSTA pathways to the science standards: High school edition. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
Weld, J., ed. 2004. Th e game of science education. Boston: Pearson.